Seoul Administrative Court-2016-Gu Group-57260 ( October 16, 2017)

A building in which an officetel is actually used for residence and which falls under a house under the provisions of the former Income Tax Act;

(1) It is reasonable to view that an officetel is a building actually offered for residence, notwithstanding its purpose in the public register, and is a house under the former Income Tax Act. The disposition of capital gains tax made on the premise that the instant house is not one house for one household which is exempt from taxation is legitimate.

Article 89 (1) 3 of the former Income Tax Act / [Non-taxable Capital Gains]

2017Nu5253 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax, etc.

1. AA;

1. BB director of the tax office;

October 18, 2017

December 13, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The transfer income tax reverted to the Plaintiff on November 4, 2015, which was rendered by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on November 4, 2015

283,256,810 won (including additional duties) shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this Court are as follows: (a) the first instance court’s ruling was followed by the following: (b) the first instance court’s ruling was 6th 6th , 5th 4th 4th , and 5th 11th ; and (c) the “principle of equitable taxation” was added; and (d) the 4th 3th 4th 3th 4th 4th 3th 3th 3th 201 as “2013”; and (c) therefore, (d) pursuant to

2. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.